Save this cover and the comments. In 20 to 30 years The Economist will finally aknowledge how wrong and how far from the real thing you were.

Nuclear power is - by far - the cleanest and safest form to produce energy in electric form. Nothing comes even close when one talks about baseload generation. It is amazing that this magazine boarded such a populist position.

The dream that failed ? It is more like an article that failed miserably. No single mention about countries like South Korea, Russia, China, India, South Africa, Vietnam, the UAE, etc. that keep on building nuclear reactors to quelch their thirst for energy. A slight editorial mistake perhaps. But arguably Mr. Morton doesn't venture much beyond America, Europe and Japan.

"Nuclear power will continue to be a creature of politics not economics, with any growth a function of political will or a side-effect of protecting electrical utilities from open competition." Not just nuclear power! Just substitute nuclear power with the word Energy. Energy by itself, whether produced by oil, natural gas or coal is deeply political because energy is so essential to every society. What about free markets and open competition, those darlings of The Economist ? Not so much in the world of energy: much of the reserves of oil and gas is held by government-controlled entities. Ever heard of Gazprom, Saudi Aramco, Pemex, PDVSA, Petrobras, etc. ? Heard of natural gas pipelines like NordStream and Nabucco ? Those are examples of geo-politics at its best. Why would the USA be so deeply politically and militarily involved in the Middle East ? Utilities are most often government-owned or very heavily regulated. Why would that be, dear Mr. Morton ? I would recommend reading Daniel Yergin's recent book The Quest. It would have prevented writing such a disappointing article. I am afraid that Mr. Morton and the editorial staff of The Economist still dream of Enron-style open markets for natural gas. I'd say to you: dream on and hope it doesn't become a nightmare.

And yes, nuclear fission and fusion will win out eventually, because nothing else measures up to its very energy density. And that is not a dream; physics ultimately trumps economics and politics.

I was sorry to see a paper known for high standards committing a common but elementary mistake: assuming that nuclear and renewable energy generators can be like-for-like replacements.

Renewable energy is intermittent (it generates when conditions are right, and these times are beyond the operator's control); nuclear and fossil energy is baseload (it generates whenever it's turned on, for as long as it has fuel). Power grids have to use large amounts of baseload power to ensure system stability, and efforts to mitigate that (like installing smart grids) only go so far. However a great many people eagerly propagate the myth that a renewable-energy world is entirely feasible with current technology; renewable 'baseload' does not yet exist, and there are few prospects that it is likely to before 2030.

This means that the next 20-30 years will go one of three ways:

The first (I would regard this as the best-case, minimising overall risk): renewable energy is developed and deployed widely, and baseload power is supplied (where possible) by nuclear reactors rather than shale gas or coal, since international carbon pricing will reduce incentives to build fossil fuel plants. There would be some risk of a nuclear accident, although less often and less severe than in the past, but carbon emissions could be cut quite drastically, and relatively quickly, by de-carbonising the energy sector (some 40% of global emissions at present).

The second (which I regard as most likely) is that renewable energy is constructed as in case #1, but with baseload provided by coal, natural gas (by that time, largely shale gas, relatively dirty compared to other sources), or a mixture of the two (as Germany is planning). Extremely efficient and cheap batteries are developed in the 2020s (reducing the intermittency of wind, wave and solar power), as is industrial-scale geothermal energy (also a renewable baseload generator, in theory); further gains come from high-efficiency HVDC power grids and possibly CCS technology to reduce emissions from the widespread fossil plants. Carbon emissions are reduced modestly but large gains have to be made in other areas to meet targets.

The worst-case scenario is that the second scenario is pursued until 2030, but for various reasons the promises of future renewable energy technology prove as overblown as the early enthusiasm for nuclear energy: before it existed, people were quick to see benefits and slow to realise its downsides. I see much of the same problem with renewable technology now.

We currently have some leeway in timings for emissions-reduction; an aggressive reactor construction campaign in the West, starting now, could dramatically cut global emissions, and do it cheaper than other contemporary options; in conjunction with energy-efficiency regulations, the impact could be massive. But gambling that we can do the same with renewable energy - when countries like Denmark have tried, and largely failed to do so - runs the risk of leaving us stuck addicted to coal and cheap gas, with no time left to build reactors that we know can do the job. It would be very ironic if the world is badly battered by climate change (already causing an estimated 300,000 extra deaths per year, despite being barely detectable yet), because nuclear was seen as too dangerous and expensive to pursue.

My personal reluctance about nuclear energy was overcome by the fact that the only country in the world to have made rapid, cost-effective progress in cutting carbon emissions is France - and it did it by building lots of state-owned reactors, de-carbonising its electricity supply in a decade. We need more of that success, not less; climate change is the danger here.

The media has been alive with discussion of the collateral nuclear damage from the March 10th, 2011 9.0 earthquake in Japan. First, over 20-25,000 people died due the tsunami. There have been no reported deaths due to nuclear radiation yet. The Bulletin of Atomic Scientist suggest that as many as 1000 may die; the American Nuclear Society suggest conservatively maybe 100. If one were to focus strictly on where the greatest cost/benefit ratio might be, one would put one's effort into protecting against another tsunami by a factor of 200-2000 to one.

Then if we take recent history, that over the last dozen years 6000 American, 100,000 Iraqis have died over the use of oil and we are facing a nuclear holocaust if Iran and Israel lose their cool, we need to keep in mind the unintended consequences of not using nuclear energy.

If also remember the history new technologies like steam boilers and steel bridges. It has taken more a century to get those safe. We still can't get our bridge maintenance right (See Milwaukee Daniel Hoan Memorial Bridge 2007) There is Thorium reactor technology being explored by India that we abandoned in the 1960s because it didn't produce bomb material. (Inherently much safer and 1/1000th radioactive waste material.)

Yes, there were massive bureaucratic screw ups that never should have happened and must never happen again. Please, do not throw out the baby with the bath water.

The author reckons that Japan might soon belong to the 150 countries who cope without nuclear. With 150 being more than 50% of nations the statement suggests that if the majority of countries can do without it then all can.

As you will have noticed we are listing here all the economic powerhouses of our planet, the drivers of civilization and progress. They are the nations that have to drag along the remaining nuclear suckers like USA, UK, France, Spain, Germany, China, India, Brazil, Russia, Sweden, Korea, Canada, etc.

Got it? Although the statement about the 150 nuke-free countries is numerically correct it conveys a misleading message to the cursory reader. If this is by mistake or on purpose – I can’t tell. But the same trick repeats itself a couple of times in the remainder of the article.

I'm glad I've cancelled my subscription. Nicely written article as usual but very little substance to back up the conclusions.
There's an inevitability about nuclear energy, the day to day opinions of the masses and short sighted economists doesn't change the fact that energy will continue to be needed in ever greater quantities. There is no technology other than nuclear and hydrocarbons that can come even close to meeting the demands of 7billion people. Fantasies about wind power are just that.

Good points to some extent, although it's worth noting that nuclear plants have never been targeted by terrorists; plus, it's not clear how much harm an attack could realistically cause.

If Fukushima showed that nuclear can't be absolutely safe, it also showed the extent of the damage that's needed to cause a nuclear plant to melt down - near-total destruction of a wide variety of critical equipment spread over several square miles, and the cutting-off of communications and transport links that allow replacements to be deployed from off-site. Any terrorist group capable of causing such widespread harm would probably fare better attacking a city anyway.

I completely agree that modern nuclear programs are essentially all about weapons. I don't think it's a cynical bid to continue building new bombs; rather I think it's that the legacy of bomb-making means that it's much easier to re-use that infrastructure, even today, than to innovate and take a risk.

I'm an avid supporter of thorium molten-salt technology, as it happens; it was specifically denied deployment in the USA in the 1960s and 1970s because it couldn't be adapted for bomb-making (or rather, it was so technically complex to do so that any nation wanting a bomb would find a different way).

Hydro power has its own limitations such as necessary land area and people who do not want to see more land flooded. Additionally, choice hydro sites are already built out in the US. So while the aggregate number for further hydro builds appears to be large that power is concentrated in certain geographical areas and not easily transmitted to areas requiring the electricity. Currently hydro only supplies about 6% of total US electricity generation and is subject to weather patterns. Drought years tend to cause hydro facilities to shut down.

Waste incineration will not supply a significant source of power in the future and creates its own problems that must be dealt with such as ash and other residues. Waste incineration would also have its own limitations similar to hydro since it is a very small portion of the total electricity generated on an annual basis. Would we generate enough garbage to constantly fuel the burners to keep the lights on if we focused significant resources towards increasing the number of waste incinerators in the US? Looking long term (>30 years) I don't think so.

I am an engineer and I know about all the advantages and dangers of nuclear technology. Also, I read the newspapers and have noted all the wars and threatened wars that circle around oil. In addition to that I know that oil companies like BP, Shell and Exxon make much more profits than all the car companies combined. I infer that London Finance is to a good degree in the business of consuming that Oil Wealth.
I invite the reader to ask some hard, unsentimental questions:
A) How many people were killed by nuclear energy to date ?
B) How many people were killed by oil rig accidents such as Piper Alpha alone ?
C) How many wars were started for Oil ? Why did Japan attack Pearl Harbour ? Why did Hitler try to strike on Baku ?
D) How many wars were started for Uranium and Thorium ?
E) How many people were killed by the poisonous dust from Diesel, Petrol and turbine engines powered by Oil ?
F) How many people were killed by artificial radiation ?
G) How many warehouses does it take to accumulate the Uranium required to fuel a large industrial nation for 20 years ?
H) How many hundred square kilometres of Oil Tanks does it take to accumulate reserves for a large industrial nation for just 2 years ?
J) Did you know Germany does have Uranium reserves it could use to be self-sufficient in its energy supply ?
K) How much oil reserves do Germany and Japan have ?
L) Did you know China is currently in the process of more than doubling its nuclear generation capacity ? (httpDOT//www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf63.html)

I was disappointed to see that no consideration was given here to the various competing technologies in this field. Some are designed to work at a much smaller scale than today's nuclear plants, have some useful safety features, and are designed to be mass produced.

While these changes may well not affect the future of this power source materially, it would be good to have some reassurance that they have been at least considered before writing it off.

For example, I can't see how your evacuation numbers can possibly be right. The area around Fukushima 1 isn't densely populated, but it's not in the middle of a desert either. This article mentions 59,000 being allowed to go back so far - there will be more who haven't.http://www.japantimes.co.jp/text/nn20111001a2.html
Maybe you're missing a couple of zeros?

Likewise, $5B for damage isn't plausible. TEPCO are quoting over a trillion yen ($12B) just to decommission the damaged reactors.http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-09-30/tepco-sees-climbing-fukushima-d...
That's before they compensate anybody for anything, which isn't going to be cheap. And if you start counting the indirect costs (like the effect on tourism) you get into really big numbers.

I was referring to this particular article by Mr. Morton. The other articles in the series are a little more balanced, fortunately. The Chinese build-out to 80 GWe of nuclear power capacity until 2020 is no mean feat and adds a lot more capacity in TWh scale, than the worldwide wind and solar build-out will achieve until 2020. This also contradicts Mr. Morton's view that nuclear will continue to play a marginal role.

My main thrust was that the Economist is very fond of open competition and free markets. However, its editors fail to see that open competition and free markets are rather limited in the energy business, due to the pivotal role of energy in society, which makes political/government interference inherent.

The Economist, hailing from the country of accountants and shopkeepers, always appears to have great fondness for natural gas, an energy source every accountant and business analyst must like, with "cheap" gas turbines and a seemingly fast payback period. A couple of years ago, the Economist predicted a great future for the LNG market in one of its series. This has failed to materialise and now shale gas is the talk of the town. Natural gas may be very cheap now, thanks to shale gas, but ask lawmakers in Sacramento, CA what happens when it isn't, like in 2001. You'll see those nice spreadsheets of these accountants and business analysts go up in flames.

In much of the energy business, you'll need to be strategic and plan 10 to 20 years ahead, something which can't easily be crammed in fanciful spreadsheets. This long time horizon conflicts with the short time horizon of participants in free markets in open competition, who can't look beyond a couple of months, let alone years.

France does have the lowest electricity prices in Europe and they also source 70% of electricity from nuclear.
Germany is the opposite because we do all sorts of stupid "green" economic experiments with solar cells and windmills.

I am an engineer and I know about all the advantages and dangers of nuclear technology. Also, I read the newspapers and have noted all the wars and threatened wars that circle around oil. In addition to that I know that oil companies like BP, Shell and Exxon make much more profits than all the car companies combined. I infer that London Finance is to a good degree in the business of consuming that Oil Wealth.
I invite the reader to ask some hard, unsentimental questions:
A) How many people were killed by nuclear energy to date ?
B) How many people were killed by oil rig accidents such as Piper Alpha alone ?
C) How many wars were started for Oil ? Why did Japan attack Pearl Harbour ? Why did Hitler try to strike on Baku ?
D) How many wars were started for Uranium and Thorium ?
E) How many people were killed by the poisonous dust from Diesel, Petrol and turbine engines powered by Oil ?
F) How many people were killed by artificial radiation ?
G) How many warehouses does it take to accumulate the Uranium required to fuel a large industrial nation for 20 years ?
H) How many hundred square kilometres of Oil Tanks does it take to accumulate reserves for a large industrial nation for just 2 years ?
J) Did you know Germany does have Uranium reserves it could use to be self-sufficient in its energy supply ?
K) How much oil reserves do Germany and Japan have ?
L) Did you know China is currently in the process of more than doubling its nuclear generation capacity ? (http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf63.html)

Nucleur Fusion did not fail. The Jett project in the UK did work in the 1960s but the magnets used to suspend the core cost more energy then they got out. However with tecnological advancements, this is being solved.

Fusion is not extremely dangerous, in fact I wouldn't call it dangerous at all. More source material has to be added to keep the reaction going rather than in Fission it can continue exponentially without any further inputs. Although this technology is a long way from completion, the first working plant is being constructed at the moment, named the ITER project. For those interested, here is the link

Stereotyping the words 'Nucleur' with extremely dangerous and can only happen in areas of poor educated, possibly under dictatorship is naive. The ITER project discussed above is being built in the south of france with funding from many countries keen to get this SAFE and CLEAN technology working.

There are very high hidden costs to nuclear energy, which are always picked up by the taxpayer and not the operating companies. It takes a small army to guard a nuclear power plants, complete with helicopters, patrol boats and automatic weapons. It takes a man and a dog to guard a conventional or renewable power plant. In the UK there is a dedicated nuclear police force, which enjoys powers of search and arrest that would make the KGB blush. So along with the enormous security costs which are entirely underwritten by the state, there are serious implications for civil liberties. Nuclear plants are obvious terrorist targets. Wind and solar are not. One only has to look at the development of nuclear energy from its start at Calder Hall (renamed Sellafield after Britain's own nuclear fire in the 1950's) to Iran today to see that it is always a smokescreen for developing nuclear weapons. The bomb needs a nuclear economy to support it.